Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Five Myths About Atheism

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16,140
    Thanks
    10,960
    Thanked 19,494 Times in 9,086 Posts
    Groans
    1,448
    Groaned 1,427 Times in 1,256 Posts

    Default Five Myths About Atheism

    Atheists -- naughty and nice -- should define themselves

    Myth No. 1: The "new atheism" is a phenomenon that differs radically not only from atheism as it has existed since antiquity but from the views held by forerunners of modern atheism, including deists and Enlightenment rationalists, like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, who played such a critical role in the founding of this nation. Try as I might, I find little in the works of Dawkins, Harris et. al.--apart from their knowledge of modern science--that differs significantly from the views of secular thinkers of earlier eras.

    What is different is that today's atheists are not hiding behind other labels, such as agnosticism, in order to placate religious sensibilities. It is this lack of deference, more than anything else, that has outraged religious believers--particularly those on the right--in America.

    Most have confused their constitutional right to believe whatever they want with the idea that the beliefs themselves must be inherently worthy of respect.

    Myth No. 2: Atheists think all religious believers are stupid. It is true that Dennett coined the unfortunate term "Brights" to describe atheists--which does imply that he considers believers dimwitted. But I disagree with Dennett on this point, and so do a good many atheists I know (some of whom didn't even make the "kinder, gentler" list). I am quite prepared to concede that there are a fair number of intellectually challenged atheists, and I have no interest in arguing about whether the proportion of dunces is higher among the religious. As for the intelligence of religious believers, I doubt that many educated atheists would consider Aquinas, Abelard, or, for that matter, Prothero stupid. What we do think is that their ideas are wrong and irreconcilable with the laws of nature.

    One point, however, is indisputable: there is a strong correlation between simplistic fundamentalist beliefs, relying on a literal interpretation of sacred texts, and lack of education. As the level of education rises, the number of people who believe in materially impossible tales such as the creation of the universe in six days; the literal resurrection of the dead; and the Virgin Birth diminishes.

    That is why fundamentalists have been tireless in their efforts to inject religious teaching into public schools. So it is generally true (although there are of course many exceptions) that the less people have learned about science, history, and different belief systems, the more likely they are to cling to a rigid form of faith.

    Nevertheless, education and intelligence are hardly identical. Holders of doctoral degrees, whether in philosophy or biology, are less likely than high school dropouts to believe in the supernatural, but plenty of people with more than 16 years of formal education are quite susceptible to a wide variety of non-supernatural but equally muttonish notions dressed as lamb. One need only consider the number of grownup atheists who are still as entranced as 15-year-olds with the sophomoric Ayn Rand, whose basic philosophy, as expressed in her turgid novels, is that the only proper relation of one human being toward another is "hands off." History is filled with atheists who have embraced every crackpot notion from eugenics to the desirability of eternal life facilitated not by God but by science. Of course, there have also been a great many religious believers who find that their godly philosophy include racial superiority and the inferiority of the poor.

    (Let's not forget the most recent example of a stupid Christian politician, South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who thinks that free school lunches encourage the poor and stupid to reproduce.)

    What ultimately distinguishes atheists from religious believers, however, is that no intelligent atheist can ever claim that his or her ideas constitute absolute truth.

    Myth No. 3: This brings us to the most common false stereotype about atheism--that it is a religion and, furthermore, that "atheist fundamentalism" is as intolerant as conventional religious fundamentalism.

    Prothero uses the revealing word "genuflection" to describe the supposed attitude of atheists toward the writings of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Other critics of atheism have described these writings as "sacred texts" for atheists. I hate to break it to the anti-atheists, but another crucial distinction between us and them is that we have no sacred, authoritative texts. Dawkins gave me a very generous quote for the jacket of the British edition of "The Age of American Unreason," in spite of the fact that I have often written (and wrote in this particular book) that I do not agree with him or with Harris about the dangers of "moderate" religion to the body politic.

    Dawkins is not the Pope, science is not God, and all of these purportedly gentler women in the ranks of atheists are not handmaidens of the Lord. (I should add that Prothero did provide a separate list of "kinder, gentler" male atheists, whose chief qualification seemed to be that they had all struggled to free themselves from unquestioning faith. As someone who, as far back as I can remember--certainly from around age 12--never accepted what I was taught in Catholic school and suffered no pangs of conscience when I realized that I did not believe in God or in any religion, I probably qualify as a "hard" rather than a "soft" atheist.)

    Integral to the myth of atheism as a religion is the false proposition that atheists claim to "know" there is no God. Robert Green Ingersoll, the 19th-century orator dubbed the "Great Agnostic," put it succinctly in 1885 when asked a question by a Philadelphia reporter who was trying to get him to denounce atheists.

    "Don't you think the belief of the Agnostic is more satisfactory to the believer than that of the Atheist?" the reporter asked. Ingersoll replied, "There is no difference. The Agnostic is an Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says: "I do not know, but I do not believe that there is any god. The Atheist says the same. The orthodox Christian says he knows there is a god: but we know that he does not know. He simply believes. He cannot know. The Atheist cannot know that God does not exist."

    Today, as in the past, atheists can say only that on the basis of the available evidence, we don't think an omnipotent deity has anything to do with either the ultimate origins of the universe or the ethical dilemmas that human beings confront every day. Indeed, we do not "know" how the first particle of matter came into being any more than believers "know" how God came into being. We admit this. They don't.

    Myth No. 4: Atheists believe that science explains everything. No. We believe that science offers the best possibilities for explaining what we do not yet understand. Science--in contrast to religion--is a method of thought and exploration, not a set of conclusions based on unchallengeable assumptions. Science is always open to the possibility that its conclusions may be proved wrong by new evidence based on new experimentation and observation. Monotheistic religion's bedrock assumption is the existence of a god who always was and always will be.

    Atheists (at least those with a scintilla of scientific knowledge) would never claim that the universe always was and always will be.

    Myth No. 5: Atheists deny the possibility of "transcendent" experience. They can't see beyond the material world. This stereotype is partially true, but it all depends on what you mean by transcendent. If the concept is understood, as it is by many religious believers, as an experience that goes beyond and defies the usual limits of nature--including time, space, and the flesh-and-blood essence of human beings, then atheists do not accept the transcendent. But if the word is understood as something that pushes us beyond our everyday experience--that enables us to scale previously unknown heights of love, creativity, or wonder at what other members of our species have created, how could any man or woman of reason deny the possibility?

    We simply believe that such experience lie within, not outside of, nature.

    As an atheist, I highly doubt that my subjective experience differs qualitatively from that of a religious believer who thrills to Bach's Goldberg Variations, Michaelangelo's David, Leonardo's Adoration of The Magi, or, for that matter, the immensity of a night sky. I do not have to believe in God, or any supernatural entity larger than myself, to feel overwhelming awe upon holding a newborn baby or upon experiencing the reciprocal, passionate love that comes rarely--the kind of love, as Nietzsche observed, that "compels me to speak as though I were Two." But I do interpret these experiences differently from a believer, because I do not ascribe any mystical or supernatural character to them. Such transcendent experiences do not make us greater than ourselves; they help us realize our best selves--the best of which our species is capable.

    I see very little difference between the religious believer's insistence on the existence of an immortal soul and the insistence of some secular philosophers and psychologists on the existence of a consciousness or a mind that is, in some inexplicable way, independent of our physical corpus. I do not consider the fruits of our love and labor--which will outlast our finite existence--less valuable because they depend on functioning neurons and because the neurons that produced them will eventually die. This insistence on an independent consciousness, mind, soul, or spirit is a product of human limitation and human arrogance.

    Because we are the most intelligent animals on the planet, we can imagine our own extinction. We hate that knowledge--atheists and religious believers alike--so we invent a variety of non-material concepts to explain away the inevitable end of a consciousness that depends entirely on our physical being.

    Speaking only for myself, I find that awareness of my inevitable extinction enhances rather than diminishes my life. This awareness makes me want to leave something behind, if only a piece of scholarship that will be useful to some seeker of knowledge in a library of the future. I will admit that I am deeply disturbed by the possibility that libraries may become extinct, although the digital world offers a kind of eternal life that neither an atheist nor a religious believer could have predicted when I was a child.

    The novelist Milan Kundera has written about a number of developments the Creator never imagined--among them surgery and humans' relationship with their dogs. To that I would add the internet.

    The digital world, because it is a product of human intelligence, is a part of the nature (for better and for worse) of which men and women also comprise a finite part. To fill our portion of the universe with the best achievements possible, through our love and our work, is purpose enough for a lifetime and requires no transcendence of nature and no afterlife.

    BY Susan Jacoby

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    25
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Duh.

    __________________
    "For the believing Christian, death is no big deal... for the non-believer, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence--what a horrible act!"


    For once in his life, Scalia gets something right.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    I'm getting the feeling that you don't like me that much.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    25
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I'm liking the thinking that you don't feel me that much.
    __________________
    "For the believing Christian, death is no big deal... for the non-believer, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence--what a horrible act!"


    For once in his life, Scalia gets something right.

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HUGH G DIPSHITZ View Post
    I'm liking the thinking that you don't feel me that much.
    __________________
    "For the believing Christian, death is no big deal... for the non-believer, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence--what a horrible act!"


    For once in his life, Scalia gets something right.
    LOL, that was actually pretty funny.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,786 Times in 32,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by signalmankenneth View Post
    What is different is that today's atheists are not hiding behind other labels, such as agnosticism, in order to placate religious sensibilities.
    actually, that isn't true....we have seen new labels in recent years, notably "strong atheists" and "weak atheists"......I suspect the distinction has arisen solely because people are afraid to be identified as real atheists....nobody likes to be recognized as a true idiot....thus they can say, "well, I'm only a weak atheist"......

    Myth No. 2: Atheists think all religious believers are stupid.
    I agree....this is a myth.....the true statement is that religious believers think all atheists are stupid....and they are correct....

    Myth No. 3: This brings us to the most common false stereotype about atheism--that it is a religion and, furthermore, that "atheist fundamentalism" is as intolerant as conventional religious fundamentalism.
    I would have to agree that atheist fundamentalism is not equally intolerant as religious fundamentalism.....it is far more intolerant.....
    what cannot be denied is that when an atheists states "there is no god", they are making a faith statement....a belief held in the absence of evidence.....until they admit that fact there is no reason to consider any atheist logical....

    Myth No. 4: Atheists believe that science explains everything. No. We believe that science offers the best possibilities for explaining what we do not yet understand. Science--in contrast to religion--is a method of thought and exploration, not a set of conclusions based on unchallengeable assumptions. Science is always open to the possibility that its conclusions may be proved wrong by new evidence based on new experimentation and observation. Monotheistic religion's bedrock assumption is the existence of a god who always was and always will be.
    the very fact that you can use the phrase "science--in contrast to religion" demonstrates true atheistic fundamentalism....

    Myth No. 5: Atheists deny the possibility of "transcendent" experience. They can't see beyond the material world. This stereotype is partially true
    good enough, then....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind
    Posts
    7,458
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    actually, that isn't true....we have seen new labels in recent years, notably "strong atheists" and "weak atheists"......I suspect the distinction has arisen solely because people are afraid to be identified as real atheists....nobody likes to be recognized as a true idiot....thus they can say, "well, I'm only a weak atheist"......


    I agree....this is a myth.....the true statement is that religious believers think all atheists are stupid....and they are correct....


    I would have to agree that atheist fundamentalism is not equally intolerant as religious fundamentalism.....it is far more intolerant.....
    what cannot be denied is that when an atheists states "there is no god", they are making a faith statement....a belief held in the absence of evidence.....until they admit that fact there is no reason to consider any atheist logical....


    the very fact that you can use the phrase "science--in contrast to religion" demonstrates true atheistic fundamentalism....



    good enough, then....
    PMP, your intelligence halves itself when discussing religion. You do yourself a disservice by failing to seriously entertain the arguments in this piece.
    There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.

    -Oscar Wilde

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    PMP's intelligence halves? From retarded to being a tree stump?
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,786 Times in 32,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Epicurus View Post
    PMP, your intelligence halves itself when discussing religion. You do yourself a disservice by failing to seriously entertain the arguments in this piece.
    I never give atheist cut an pastes more attention than they deserve.....if you feel like putting YOUR thoughts into type I will gladly give it the attention it warrants.....just make sure it warrants some....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

Similar Threads

  1. Atheism is DEAD... FOREVER!!!
    By davidmabus in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-15-2010, 03:52 AM
  2. Is Atheism a religion?
    By BRUTALITOPS in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 12-25-2009, 03:02 PM
  3. Mybe liberals should stick to atheism
    By Canceled.LTroll.29 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 04:23 PM
  4. Euro-myths
    By Cypress in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 01-12-2008, 07:04 AM
  5. 5 myths about Old Europe
    By Cypress in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 10-10-2007, 07:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •